Hello, just got a Canon 1n and have question on how expose for Portra. I attached an example of a photo as reference. I’ve read to set iso to 200. Now, to take a photo of the pier (golden hour) which metering mode on my camera should i use, evaluative, partial or spot ? Do i still have to meter for the shadows if my iso already @ 200 ? If so, and for argument sake, if I’m using evaluative do i just lower my camera eliminate much of the sky, take a reading then use that reading ? Or is there better way ? How would you approach it ?
Help: New to Portra 400 how to
-
A
- Thread starter artman51164
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Minolta SpotMeter F
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold Schneider Kreuznach 90mm helical / focusing mount
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale FS Enlarging lenses. Fujinon-EX 90mm and Fujinon-EX 50mm
- Started by Erik L
-
For Sale Hasselblad Zeiss FE 50mm f/2.8 Distagon Blue Line Lens
- Started by tpstearns
Forum statistics
Welcome aboard @artman51164 and congrats on the purchase of your Canon camera.
You ask a couple of interrelated questions about metering in general and the particular metering modes on your camera. If you haven't already, it might be a good idea to read one or several texts that cover the basics of how light meters work.
Evaluative metering will make the camera decide on what it estimates to be a good exposure based on the input from its metering sensors and the algorithm embedded in the camera. It's essentially a black box. In my experience, Canon's evaluative metering especially from the era of the Canon 1n was reasonably good for average scenes, but would also be easily thrown off by bright or dark scenes or large contrasts. In this particular case, I would personally not rely on it, although since you already set the camera to overexpose by one stop (by setting it to ISO 200 instead of 400), this overall bright scene would likely record OK.
Partial and spot metering are essentially the same thing, just with a bigger (partial) or smaller (spot) metering area. In either case, you would point the meter at a part of the scene which you know where you'd want to place it exposure wise and then dial in the desired exposure compensation for that part. In this particular case (this film and this scene) I might have chosen spot metering, pointed at the supports underneath the building and dialed in something like -1.5 to -2.0 stops, since that's about the lowest bit in the film curve where I can expect decent differentiation. The rest of the scene is brighter and thus will record OK on color negative film. On slide film I would have metered on the brightest bit of the sky instead and put that on +2.0 or +2.5 stops overexposure to ensure it doesn't blow out and accept the shadows to fall where they may.
You may realize as this thread develops, that personal tastes differ greatly, and there's no single 'best' way to do this. As always, what matter is that you find a way that works well for you. I feel that a good understanding of how a light meter works is essential in that; given such an understanding, you can use whichever method available to you to good effect.
You ask a couple of interrelated questions about metering in general and the particular metering modes on your camera. If you haven't already, it might be a good idea to read one or several texts that cover the basics of how light meters work.
Any can work depending on your preferences.
Evaluative metering will make the camera decide on what it estimates to be a good exposure based on the input from its metering sensors and the algorithm embedded in the camera. It's essentially a black box. In my experience, Canon's evaluative metering especially from the era of the Canon 1n was reasonably good for average scenes, but would also be easily thrown off by bright or dark scenes or large contrasts. In this particular case, I would personally not rely on it, although since you already set the camera to overexpose by one stop (by setting it to ISO 200 instead of 400), this overall bright scene would likely record OK.
Partial and spot metering are essentially the same thing, just with a bigger (partial) or smaller (spot) metering area. In either case, you would point the meter at a part of the scene which you know where you'd want to place it exposure wise and then dial in the desired exposure compensation for that part. In this particular case (this film and this scene) I might have chosen spot metering, pointed at the supports underneath the building and dialed in something like -1.5 to -2.0 stops, since that's about the lowest bit in the film curve where I can expect decent differentiation. The rest of the scene is brighter and thus will record OK on color negative film. On slide film I would have metered on the brightest bit of the sky instead and put that on +2.0 or +2.5 stops overexposure to ensure it doesn't blow out and accept the shadows to fall where they may.
See above; the main decision you need to make when metering is to determine where in the scene you need differentiation in tonal values and what is the film's capability of recording such differentiation. In general, negative film (color & B&W) can tolerate overexposure, but underexposure results in a lack of differentiation. Reversal/slide film (and digital) have the opposite behavior. Setting the ISO to a slower speed is sometimes done with negative film to systematically bias all exposures towards overexposure. To an extent, this can compensate for mistakes in metering, but personally, I'd rather focus on metering properly and shooting at box speed (if this is the effective speed of the film, which is certainly the case for Portra 400).
You could do that and it's what I sometimes do when using an older camera that doesn't have a partial or spot metering, or a better-quality matrix metering pattern. I use Canon EOS cameras a lot and frankly never rely on their evaluative metering. If I were pressured to do so, I would do something like what you describe here, but I'd consider it a compromise.
You may realize as this thread develops, that personal tastes differ greatly, and there's no single 'best' way to do this. As always, what matter is that you find a way that works well for you. I feel that a good understanding of how a light meter works is essential in that; given such an understanding, you can use whichever method available to you to good effect.
U mentioned metering correctly when shooting using box speed. Metering correctly by exposing for the shadows ? Ex; the pier pic, meter the underside using spot then take the shot with that reading ?
Depends on what you want to achieve of course. But with negative film, you'd generally want to give precedence to preserving shadow detail since highlights will usually come out OK regardless. That's a bit of a generalization of course, but for the vast majority of cases it works that way. When talking about 'shadows', I mean important/relevant shadows. Scenes may have bits where it's perfectly OK that they hold no detail whatsoever. It depends on the scene, and also on your intent as a photographer.
Generally what is meant by "exposing for the shadows" is metering them and then exposing two to four stops less than that reading.
Hmmm, doing it wrong then. I was metering then going of that and not less than the reading. Try it next time.
The washed-out "Portra at 200" look has been made popular by a couple of YouTube "photo influencers" and now you have a lot of people on Facebook and other platforms giving it as advice without realizing that the main reason the photos of the influencers look good is that there's a lot of Lightroom post-production behind them.
My advice is don't jump the gun, especially with color film. You've had great advice here on metering. Start by seeing what the film looks like at box speed. You might like it. If not, then you can start playing with ISO.
Your post makes it looks like the film was overexposed but in my opinion it's not. It's actually not because I don't see details in the shadow. I believe it was printed (or scanned) to make it looks washed out. In fact I think it's underexposed.
Ultimately it's not so much a question of right or wrong when it comes to 'expose for the shadows'. The problem with that phrase is that it's ill-defined and the way I read @grain elevator's post is that he attempts to clarify the term - not provide a normative judgement on what should be done.
You can meter a part of the scene and then use that as a base exposure without any adjustment - it depends on a multitude of factors whether that will yield an exposure that is to your liking. That's why discussions on metering generally fail unless all these factors are made explicit, which rarely (if ever) happens. The net result is something like this:
I.e. the pictorial evidence does not conform to the description. Btw, I agree with what @Chan Tran says here. The image does not seem to be overexposed, although it's hard to tell without having seen the negative. For what it's worth, I'd consider it more or less correctly exposed, perhaps leaning towards underexposure depending on how much differentiation in the shadow areas is desired in this case. That's entirely personal/subjective.
@artman51164 if you indeed 'exposed for the shadows' in the way you defined it (i.e. point the meter at a shadow area and use that as that reading without any further adjustment), it's odd/remarkable that you ended up with this particular exposure, unless the metering mode was set to include a fairly large area (i.e. you did not use spot metering mode).
Just to verify - have you indeed read a couple of basic texts on metering in general, as well as the metering mode sections of the user manual of your camera?
One addition you seem to understand, but that often crops up and I want to clarify for people reading this thread in the future: "shadows" in this context aren't necessarily literal shadows, but dark parts of the scene, as opposed to highlights, light parts of a scene or image.
In the example you showed, metering the shadows is very difficult as the struts under the pier are thin and we can look through between them. Even with a 1° spot meter, which is narrower than what cameras generally have built in, you can hardly meter just a strut or even the darkest area comprised of several.
Metering the ground in front of you is often a viable alternative, but you still need to adjust for its brightness, which is particularly difficult with water.
What I'd probably do with a reflective meter is either that, meter something like grass, concrete or my hand. Or, in this case where I feel contrast is pretty low and shadows should be fine, I'd meter for the highlights, which is very easy as the sky here is a large uniform target. I'd estimate I'd want it about two stops brighter than medium grey, so two stops more exposure than metered. And then, as insurance, I'd probably give an extra stop, but not if the whole process already has the safety margin built in by using EI 200. That said I have little experience with colour neg but I don't see why my reasoning coming from black and white would not work here.
In this particular case the 1 degree spot will be more than narrow enough for a good measurement of the shadow area underneath the pier building. The partial metering pattern will also give acceptable results with some judicious care. I've used this metering pattern for many thousands of images and I can guarantee that it's more than adequate in virtually all circumstances, and certainly in this case, too. It does take experience to get consistent results - as is the case for any skill!
Hi Artman(numbers), perhaps reading on camera metering options and photographic exposure would help you better understand what you want to do, how to do it, and other photography options. May I suggest a very affordable and comprehensive, yet very easy to understand and extensively illustrated, book:
You can read it here or buy it for a few dollars, or other currency.
You can read it here or buy it for a few dollars, or other currency.
Portra and other professional colour neg materials are intended to have a +/-1 stop exposure latitude for proper colour correction - they can handle a much greater range of misuse in terms of density, but at the expense of potentially not getting optimal colour. Amateur neg has wider capacity (+3/-1) at the expense of never having as good colour or granularity at the aim 'correct' exposure.
These latitudes are DX-coded in, so if you are using a DX code reading & matrix metering camera, don't mess with the exposure index and run a test roll before deciding whether you know better than the meter's database.
These latitudes are DX-coded in, so if you are using a DX code reading & matrix metering camera, don't mess with the exposure index and run a test roll before deciding whether you know better than the meter's database.
If you want to evaluate your exposure shooting negative film you have to know how to evaluate exposure by looking at the negative. Looking at the scans or prints is hard to tell. But with the OP post I must say it's not overexposed.
This is so true. I have been suprised more than once to see a lab make more-or-less acceptable prints from negatives that were not properly exposed and developed. They were not great prints, but the prints did not scream, "OMG, you have an exposure problem!"
Of course, it takes a certain amount of skill (based on a lot of experience) to evaluate color negatives. Those new to color negative film might benefit from asking an experienced lab person to help evaluate their negatives for correct exposure.
This is 35mm film, right? It would be easy enough to take several shots using each metering method to see which one gives you the best results. Just keep good notes.
I find it educational to make notes about how I exposed every frame for the first few times I use a new camera or an unfamiliar film. When you get the negatives back, put them on a light table and look closely at the lightest areas (which will be shadows on the print) and see if there is detail (good exposure), or if the light areas are blank (underexposed). With 35mm film you may need a magnifying loupe to see what's going on.
The problem is as I said in the previous post if you bracket like say 3 shots with 1 stop interval you might get 3 almost identical prints. Worse yet it's possible none of the prints that you like. While it's possible looking only at the prints is very difficult to tell if the exposure was right.
-
- Sirius Glass
- Deleted
? Which is why I suggested looking at the negatives and not the prints.
-
- Sirius Glass
- Deleted
MattKing
Moderator
Welcome to Photrio.
On the subject of the negatives themselves, it helps us help you if we can look at them.
Here is a resource that explains how you might share a backlit digital image of them: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...nsparencies-for-troubleshooting-purposes.461/
On the subject of the negatives themselves, it helps us help you if we can look at them.
Here is a resource that explains how you might share a backlit digital image of them: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...nsparencies-for-troubleshooting-purposes.461/
And then there's the contrary approach of not metering the scene but going by experience or a published exposure guide.
The scene posted by the OP looks like hazy bright-ish day with even lighting and the sky and the sea in a near tonal merger. There are no deep shadows and no shrill highlights.
On Portra 400 I reckon an exposure of 1/250 sec @f11 would do it nicely. I wouldn't trust a meter reading radically different to this.
The scene posted by the OP looks like hazy bright-ish day with even lighting and the sky and the sea in a near tonal merger. There are no deep shadows and no shrill highlights.
On Portra 400 I reckon an exposure of 1/250 sec @f11 would do it nicely. I wouldn't trust a meter reading radically different to this.
-
- Sirius Glass
- Deleted
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |